Wednesday, December 28, 2011

As a pundit, I should not admit this, but it is much more interesting whenactual voters express themselves in an election, and particularly, in apresidential election. Not only is it more interesting, it is much more fun.We pundits are really a dour lot who tire ourselves out by wagging ourfingers at the candidates and everyone in sight (that is, when we are notsimply holding up our fingers in the air trying to determine political winddirection and velocity).

Now, of course, comes the heavy lifting, i.e., interpreting what the votersmean by their votes (as if we can’t take their selections at face value).

It is, to be fair, worth trying to translate a result in the Iowa caucus, wherethere are multiple candidates who will get a noticeable percentage of caucusvotes, and the winner will likely receive only about a quarter of the total.

The sober news is that despite their huge egos which propelled them into therace in the first place, several candidates will call it quits after Iowa, or soonthereafter, not only because of a poor showing, but equally or moreimportantly, because they are out of cash (and unlikely to receive muchmore).

Cash is not so important in the long run-up to Iowa and New Hampshire,especially after the 2012 cycle innovation of numerous pre-primary/caucusdebates, most of them telecast nationally. The biggest winner of thatphenomenon in 2011, Newt Gingrich, will now see if it pays off whenvotes are cast. In 2004, Howard Dean was the sensation of the internetphenomenon of that cycle, but fell short when the votes Iowa came in. Onthe other hand, Barack Obama got attention in the grass roots cycle in2008, won Iowa, and took it to the White House.

But cash is very important as contending candidates go from primary stateto primary state, states which offer little time or opportunity for “retail”campaigning.

Several pundits, myself included, have offered up the possibility that the2012 Republican nomination contest might go on longer than expected,even (horrors!) possibly all the way to Tampa and the GOP convention.It’s still possible, but the (brief?) Ron Paul bubble has sobered up theconservatives who want, most of all, to replace Mr. Obama with one oftheir own, and a coalescing around the two leading candidates, Mr. Romneyand Mr. Gingrich, seems to be taking place. If I might guess, Mr. Romneyhas the advantage in this process, although Newt-as-Lazarus cannot bebe finally dismissed until (if you will pardon the adaption) the elephant ladysings.

If Mr. Romney does win the Iowa caucus by whatever margin, he will winNew Hampshire the next week by a much bigger margin, and then head intoSouth Carolina with a full army. General Gingrich will then have to re-stage"crossing the Delaware" to a state that does not resemble colonial New Jersey,and win there so to fight credibly soon after in Florida (which resembles nostate in American history) with its large sub-groups of the elderly, severalgenerations of Cuban-American refugees, recent South and Central Americanemigres, Jewish retirees from further north on the East Coast, Americanblacks and Haitian-American settlers, Panhandle blue collar whites, SeminoleAmerican Indians, and outposts of very affluent voters on both the west andeast coasts of the peninsula.

Neither a General Washington, Grant nor Marshall would be able to stopone candidate’s tidal wave, should it develop.

Hurricanes form suddenly in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulfof Mexico before heading to the mainland on an unpredictable course.The storm of the 2012 election is now forming in the midwestern state ofIowa. Because the primary/caucus season has a known itinerary, we know thisstorm’s course, but we don’t yet know its name.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

One of the most invisible parts of the life of any human being, no matterwhere they live, no matter who they are, is the passage of one calendaryear to another. Of course, each religion and each culture have certainmarkers called holidays which reflect the four seasons of life on earth, butthe awareness of years passing only seems to be a conscious matter of theold as they become increasingly aware of their own bodies aging and theapproaching limits of their own lives.

We are now days from one more passage of the calendar year most observedin the Western world, and in the United States of America, a nation untilrecently unchallenged as the most powerful and productive on earth. Itremains so, but now there are inevitable challenges on the near horizon ofhistory coming, and there are new self-doubts, self-recriminations andoutright pessimism in its outlook into the always unpredictable future.

The former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, recently penned an op ed in TheWall Street Journal entitled Capitalism And The The Right To Rise,"; and itcaused an extraordinary amount of interest, even among those not countedas fans of his, or devotees of his family, now perhaps the most distinguishedin the history of American public life (along with the Adams and the Taftfamilies). Jeb Bush himself, it has often recently been said, would have wonthe 2012 Republican nomination for president (a contest now raging in fullforce) had not it been for his surname and his DNA.

There was a reason why Mr. Bush's essay caused so much interest, in myopinion. That reason was that he identified in a phrase, and in hissubsequent argument, what it is that sets the American republic and itsform of democratic capitalism from all other systems to date.

Recently, prominent American commentators have indulged in a fecklessself-revilement of that distinctly American public process, and an openpraise of other processes, including parliamentary systems and even,the peculiar totalitarian pseudo-capitalism of the Chinese PeoplesRepublic. The U.S. republic, they say, is too corrupt, too messy, toonon-egalitarian, and ultimately too weak, to survive much past thepresent time. Centralized, highly bureaucratic regimes, they predict, willsoon overshadow our own "unfashionable" way of life.

Radicals and some liberals have already embraced these criticisms, andit is suggested that the president of the United States is among them.Isolationists and those on the far right try to pick and choose theirfavorite principles while opposing or ignoring others that are vital toAmerican success and survival.

The U.S. political center and most conservatives, those who still stronglysupport "the American way," have been shaken not just by this criticism,but by events in very recent years here and abroad. Financial "inequality,""racism," "political incorrectness," and lack of "diversity" are the rubricsof much of this criticism, and the historic assertiveness of the contributionand creativity of the United States has been replaced with defensiveness,apologies and passivity.

Even the contemporary contest for the Republican nomination forpresident in 2012, for the right to oppose Barack Obama, has beenlacking (much of the time) in effective re-assertions of the basicAmerican principles. On a few occasions, Jon Huntsman, MicheleBachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and, yes,Herman Cain have come forward in admirable fashion, but none ofthem is going to be president. Much more consistently, a veryflawed candidate, Newt Gingrich, an eloquent and thoughtfulhistorian, has defended and elucidated these principles, andthrough the pre-primary/caucus debates articulated them to makea remarkable comeback. But now he inevitably has run into awithering series of attacks on his personal life and his long previouspolitical record that is overshadowing his campaign.

The likely GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, but he has so far failed to "closethe deal" with Republican voters. In many ways, he is the personificationof Jeb Bush's "right to rise," but he has not yet successfully communicatedthis to his party, and GOP voters so far are hesitating before handing himthe political prize he seeks.

I have only met Jeb Bush once, and heard him speak in person later on thatoccasion. His record as governor of Florida was as good as any governor ofeither party anywhere in recent years, and he is obviously a thoughtful man,perhaps a "deeper" figure than his grandfather, father and brother. Thepolitical calendar, and circumstances, however, have not been advantageousto any personal ambitions he may hold.

It would serve those in the GOP contest now entering its climactic stage,nontheless, to take heed of what he wrote, and the meaning of what he said.Only when the candidates of his party, or any other party, re-assert theAmerican basic principle Jeb Bush has expressed, and how to restore it,will this nation and its society be able to take a rightful place in the worldthat is coming in the unknown calendar years in front of us.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Ron Paul, the Libertarian congressman from Texas may have peakedalmost two weeks before the Iowa caucus. If he does not win there, thanwho can and will win?

No one knows with any certainty, but many Republican caucus votersseem only half-heartedly behind their favorite candidate. The campaignsthemselves are playing an elaborate game of creating low expectationsfor their results in the voting. So many political poll bubbles have comeand gone that the presumption of the final order is back almost to thebeginning when Mitt Romney was the sole frontrunner nationally andMr. Paul the most residual challenger in Iowa.

Iowa Republicans are, for the most part, very conservative, and includemany rural, evangelical and other social conservative voters. The partyestablishment, however, is more moderate, and is led by by popularmulti-termed Governor Terry Branstad. After a considerable hiatusduring which he served as a college president, Branstad returned in theGOP landslide of 2010 to the state capitol.

Pockets of very liberal voters, especially in Iowa City (the home of theUniversity of Iowa), Quad Cities and Des Moines with its large numberof labor union employees, exist throughout the state. Many Iowa farmersare populists and progressive, a tradition that exists all over the prairiestates of North and South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and Iowa.

In fact, a number of other farm voters, as well as Iowa suburbanvoters, defy standard ideological and party categories, and fit into thepeculiar libertarian and isolationist tradition that has existed since thelast century in this region.

These voters make up much of the base of Ron Paul's support.

A new Iowa, however, includes highly-educated, white collar voters whoare younger, more affluent, and freer from political stereotypes thantheir parents and grandparents. Less fundamentalist in their religiousviews than older Iowa generations, but not as liberal as many students,high school and college teachers, new ethnic voters recently moved intothe state, and activist union members, they compose a relatively newvoting bloc. These voters tend to support Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrichand might have supported Jon Huntsman had he competed in the state,or would have supported Tim Pawlenty had he remained in the contest.

It is this voting bloc, along with undecided conservatives, who make upthe large number of Iowa Republicans who are not truly committed yet toa particular candidate. I suspect that relatively few of them are drawn toRon Paul. If they stay home, or split among the other candidates, Mr Paulwill win Iowa. But if they coalesce around Romney, Gingrich, or Perry inthe closing days of the campaign, the results could be quite surprising.

This unanswered question about who will turn out on January 3 is thesource of this cycle's nagging mystery of what will happen in Iowa in 2012.

Monday, December 19, 2011

After a zillion (any number beyond what is useful) opinion polls, andpols (and pundits) with opinions, we are now going to have some resultsregarding the 2012 election from the folks who count, that is, the voters.

The fluid caucus race in Iowa is turning out to be a memorable politicaladventure, thanks to the unprecedented pre-caucus candidate debates.After a series of poll "bubbles" which thrust Michele Bachmann, RickPerry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich (in that order) forward, the finalbubble appears to be that of Ron Paul, a perennial presidential candidateunder various political party guises who appeals to a devoted claque inthe Hawkeye state. Iowa voters have so far resisted acclaiming the earlyfrontrunner Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, for the Republican party andfor Republicans in Iowa, a Paul caucus victory will render the state'scaucus irrelevant to the 2012 presidential contest outcome, and elevatethe importance of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida (whoseprimaries follow). But it's a free country, and Iowa GOP voters willchoose their own political caucus destiny.

Mr. Gingrich has challenged the conventional wisdom that grass rootsorganization is what counts most in Iowa, and for about two weeks, heseemed to be correct. Now his greatest hope is a "hail Mary" issue heintroduced on national TV, asserting that if he is elected president, hemay, if the issue is serious enough, ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings(citing no less than Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and FranklinDelano Roosevelt as his precedents). It's an issue likely to be receivedwell in Iowa, and I would assume that the Gingrich campaign will floodthe airwaves with ads about this in the days before the caucus.

If this does not re-surge the Gingrich campaign, it would appear thatthe race is down to Mr. Paul and Mr. Romney. There is little expectationthat Mr. Romney would win in Iowa, so if he does, and follows it withan expected triumph in New Hampshire, it could be the beginning ofthe "momentum" he needs to clinch the nomination.

Michele Bachmann is literally pouring it on in Iowa, and is expected todo better than her poll numbers indicate she would. Mr. Perry has spenta lot of ad money, and Mr. Santorum has worked the state relentlesslyfor months, so any pundit who suggests he or she can predict the outcomeis probably living in a dreamland.

But why must we have a predicted winner? The important point is thatat last GOP voters are speaking their minds, and will continue to do soin the GOP race until June, and then officially in Tampa.

After that, there will be an historic campaign with opposing candidatesmore at odds, and with more differing visions, than any in memory, andpossibly, with more at stake in the lives of those who read this.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

DES MOINES - The latest Republican presidential debate, a contentiousone in the Iowa capital less than four weeks from the Iowa first-in-the-nationcaucus on January 3, took place as the long-forming contest began to takesome discernible shape across the nation.

As already reported, new GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich, surging in virtuallyevery state poll, east and west, north and south, was attacked pointedly byhis rivals, as he has been attacked in the media, and by old friends and foes,over the past two weeks. So far, he has handled himself well, and remainedapparently not seriously wounded. In fact, his surge continues in spite of theattacks. He is also experiencing some luck (a not inconsequential factor inalmost every successful presidential campaign) in that the most noted miscuein the debate was not his, but by the previous frontrunner Mitt Romney whenhe casually bet Rick Perry $10,000 to prove an allegation the Texas governormade about him. One more time, Mr. Gingrich seemed to be judged the debatewinner by the media. Only one more major debate with all the candidatesremains until January 3.

Behind the setting of the debate at Des Moines' Drake University campus,both the Romney and Gingrich campaigns were furiously playing catch-upin on-the-ground organization, an important factor for success in thiscaucus state. Mr. Romney was well-organized in 2007-08 in Iowa when hecompeted against and lost the caucus (to Mike Huckabee), and thus has hadan easier time restarting his campaign at the precinct level in 2011-12. Hisis the only urban Des Moines headquarters, located on Ingersoll Avenue nearthe city center. All the other candidate offices are located in the city's suburbs,including Urbandale where Mr. Gingrich has just set up shop. Based on mymany presidential cycles covering Iowa, it would appear that both campaignswill be near-fully operational by caucus night. In Mr. Romney's case, he has thefunds, and seasoned supporters in place. Mr. Gingrich is benefiting from hisintense surge here and seemingly everywhere else. The Romney campaignseems to have the advantage on paper, but it is difficult to measure the impactof Mr. Gingrich's surge, especially if he can maintain it until January 3.

Nor should the well-organized campaigns of Michele Bachmann and RonPaul be ignored. Rick Perry has a serious effort here, as well, but he has seemedto have lost much ground since his "bubble" appeared to burst during thedebates following his late entry into the race. Rick Santorum, as perhaps themost conservative candidate (along with Mrs. Bachmann) in the race, also hasa notable following here, and may well do better than the expectation createdby his poll numbers. Mrs. Bachmann seems likely to do better than her pollnumbers, as she pulls out all political stops to survive past Iowa.

Jon Huntsman has not competed here, and did not appear in Saturday'sdebate. He is putting everything he has into New Hampshire where he admitshe has to finish a strong third (behind Romney and Gingrich, but clearlyahead of Ron Paul). Herman Cain once enjoyed a surge of his own in Iowa,but has suspended his campaign, and is no longer making campaignappearances.

Iowa has a particular character that includes many evangelical voters, farmers,and urban conservatives. There are major urban liberal areas, including DesMoines, Iowa City (home of my graduate school alma mater, the Universityof Iowa), as well as many farm communities in northwestern Iowa, but theRepublican voter in the Hawkeye state has become increasingly conservativesince the 1970's when its presidential caucus was inaugurated.

A libertarian populist (and isolationist) faction exists here, and this has fueledthe Ron Paul campaign which did well in the past two straw polls and in the2008 caucus itself. Mr. Paul could win here on January 3, but the voterconfiguration in Iowa that makes that possible exists almost nowhereelse, and a Paul victory on January 3 would probably make Iowa much lessrelevant to the GOP presidential contest than Republican leaders wouldprefer. Media attention would then focus on who came in second, and whowas ahead of whom.

The Iowa race is now engaged in full. TV and radio ads will flood the airwaves.Allegations will fly back and forth. In the unseeded corn fields of thismidwestern state, all is quiet, preparing for the cold winter before the nextplanting season. In the political fields in Iowa, however, activity is increasingand the heat is rising.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

As we approach the next presidential debate and the next Europeancrisis, each of which seems curiously connected to each other, here aresome brief notes:

Even as the breathless, sensational "old" stories about Newt Gingrichnow pour out like an Alpine avalanche into the various news media,the former speaker's poll numbers appear to be rising, not falling asconventional wisdom might have predicted they would. Is it possiblethat the public tolerance of private and matrimonial gossip masqueradingas substantial "news" has reached a natural limit? Is this a warning tothe Obama organization that their purported investment in a massivenegative campaign planned against the eventual Republican nominee(whoever it might be) may not work out as planned? I have longmaintained that in Mr. Gingrich's case particularly, his much-ballyhooed"baggage" might be mostly ignored by voters if they were worried andfearful enough about the economy and the security of the nation, and ifthey had lost any remaining confidence in the incumbent president. Isthat where we are? Is that why the Gingrich "bubble" seems to be not onlyenduring, but growing?

The Corzine scandal is going to be huge. Does any rational human beingbelieve that a man who reportedly was worth $400 million, and then waselected a US. senator, and after that, was elected governor of New Jersey,doesn't know what happened to the enormous amount of money lost andmissing from the corporation he led as C.E.O.?

Those following the European economic crisis have perhaps noted a certainpattern, that is, the crisis over the currency and debt reaches a criticalmoment at which resolution seems imminent, only to be papered over fora few months, then weeks, and now days until the next "absolutely critical"moment? How many of these moments does the European Union and theeuro currency have left? Some British observers are lamenting theirapparent exclusion from the decision-making now led by Germany andFrance because in a fortuitous moment the British decided not to adopt theeuro, but to keep their pound sterling. The British dilemma is, of course,that the outcome of the continental problems profoundly affects their ownprospects, especially since the Obama administration has allowed the"special relationship" between the U.S. and Great Britain to deteriorateand wither. Isn't is curious that many British observers, including some whoare not Tories, are now openly pining for a "new" Margaret Thatcher, just asa number of U.S. observers, including some who are not right wingers, arepining for a "new" Ronald Reagan? I even know one endangered incumbentwho is pining for a "new" Teddy Roosevelt. San Juan Hill, anyone?

Like a skin blister, the situation in the Middle East is approaching somedramatic release of historic pressure. Are we months away from it, weeks,days or even hours?

Why do media commentators keep reviving stories of new candidatesentering the presidential election, and prognosticating that there will be oneor more serious third party candidates in the November, 2012 election?Needless to say, anything is possible, and there are always numerousminor candidates on any November presidential ballot, but is there reallya significant candidate outside the two major parties? Mayor Bloomberg?Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Alec Baldwin? Madonna? Derek Jeter?Theoretically, some one or two could be "spoilers," (and with a relativelytiny number of votes cast for him nationally, Mr. Nader did make thedifference in 2000; and Mr. Perot, with many more votes cast forhim, made a difference in 1992), but economic conditions are probably tootroubling for voters likely to dabble this cycle. The election will be areferendum (if not a plebiscite) on President Obama.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucus, and after almosta year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nominationfor president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be thepsychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity ofevents and perceived time increases noticeably.

This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Nowthe most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that MittRomney’s poll numbers have been constant and will lead to his victory,will be tested. It is undeniable that the former Massachusetts governorand persistent 2012 frontrunner’s poll numbers have fluctuated within arelatively narrow range in lower double digits (15-25%) in most polls to thisdate, but what will happen now that actual voting results are posted anddisseminated?

A lot may depend on the Iowa caucus results. Either a win for Romney or hislatest major challenger, Newt Gingrich, could set a quick resolution of the GOPcontest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, NewHampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossiblewin in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to thefinal outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having evenmore influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivalsbecause of his current big lead in that state.

Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer willtell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needsa win in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa.Considering the newly-energized Romney Iowa campaign effort, and Mr.Gingrich’s lack (until now) of a serious organization in that state, the explosionupward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation could begin to bustif high expectations are not realized in the first state to actually vote in thepresidential race.

The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is a familiar face in Iowa,having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming insecond in the 2008 caucus voting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner).Until recently he had not activated his Iowa organization, but he has thecontacts, staff and funds to raise this organization from dormancy. Ron Paul notonly competed heavily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeablestatewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has morepotential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheernumbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’s poll numbers in Iowahave continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overshadowed bya strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he couldconceivably win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreignpolicy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imaginewhere his campaign could go next for anything more than a third, fourth orworse finish in subsequent primaries.

Mr. Gingrich’s name is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker ofthe House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state duringthe past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier inthe year when most of his campaign staff resigned. The secret to success in theIowa caucus has always been organization. That is the nature of any caucus statewhere only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks hasbeen beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina,both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, ishe attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election nightsuccess. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann,Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have created active organizationsin Iowa.

Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospects, then, inIowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but inhis fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowaendorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year.The bottom line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do wellin New Hampshire, and begin winning primaries in South Carolina and Florida.

An alternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that noone candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replayof the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the twoleading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampaconvention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is ascenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republicanvoters not making a decision, as they usually do, in the first month or so of theprimary/caucus season.

With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucus, and after almosta year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nominationfor president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be thepsychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity ofevents and perceived time increases noticeably.

This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Nowthe most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that MittRomney’s poll numbers have been constant, will be tested. It is undeniablethat the former Massachusetts governor and perennnial 2012 frontrunner’spoll numbers have fluctuated within a relatively narrow range in lower doubledigits (!5-25%) in most polls to this date, but what will happen now thatactual voting results are posted and disseminated?

A lot may depend on the Iowa caucu results.Either a win for Romney or hisltest major challenger, Newt Gingirch, could set a quick resolution of the GOPcontest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, NewHampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossiblewin in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to thefinal outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having evenmore influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivalsbecause of his current big lead in that state.

Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer willtell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needsa wiin in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa.Considering the newly-energized Romney campaign effort in Iowa, and Mr.Gingrich’s lack until now of a serious organization in that state, the exploionupward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation coud begin to bustif high expectations are not realized int he first state to actually vote in thepresidential race.

The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is well-known in Iowa,having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming insecnd in the 2008 caucus vtoting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner).Until now he has not activated his Iowa organizatin, but he has the contacts,staff and funds to raise this organizatin from dormancy. Ron Paul not onlycompted havily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeablestatewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has morepotential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheernumbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’ poll numbers in Iowahave continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overhadowed bya strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he couldconceivaby win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolaitionist foreignpolicy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imaginewhere his campaign could go next for anyting more than a third, fourth or worsefinish in subsequrent primaries.

Mr. Gingrich’s nme is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker ofthe House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state duringthe past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier inthe year when most of his campaing staff resigned. The secret to success in theIowa caucus has always been orgainzation. That is the nature of any caucus statewhere only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks hasbeen beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina,both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, ishe attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election nightsuccess. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann,Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have been making active campaignsto do well in Iowa, and who are better organized to do so.

Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospcts, then, inIowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but inhis fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowaendorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year.The borrim line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do wellin New Hampshire, and begin winning primareies in South Carolina and Florida.

An akternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that noone candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replayof the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the twoleading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampaconvention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is ascenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republicanvoters not making a decision, as it usually does, in the first month or so of theprimary/caucus season.

Search This Blog

About Barry Casselman

BARRY CASSELMAN is an author, journalist and lecturer who has reported and analyzed American presidential and national politics since 1972.

He founded, edited and published his first newspaper when he was 29. He has been a contributor to many national publications, including The Weekly Standard, realclearpolitics.com, Politico, Roll Call, Washington Examiner, The American Interest, Utne Reader, Campaigns and Elections Magazine, American Experiment Quarterly, Washington Times, The Rothenberg Political Report, Business Today, Election Politics, Business Ethics Magazine, San Francisco Examiner, Washington Insider, and American Commonwealth.

His regular op ed columns and other commentary in print, and on the internet, are distributed through the Preludium News Service. His blog ‘The Prairie Editor” has an international readership and appears on his website at www.barrycasselman.com .

He was a political analyst for WCCO-AM (CBS) for several years, for KSJN-AM (Public Radio International), and for KUOM-AM (National Public Radio). He has also broadcast on RAE in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and beginning in 2000, he produced and broadcast for Voice of America. In 2006, he presented news commentary on LBC, the independent 24-hour news radio network in London, England. He also provided election night analysis in 2006 for Minnesota Public Radio. In 2008, he returned to WCCO-AM for periodic national election commentary. Beginning in 2011, he began weekly commentary on the 2012 presidential campaign on a national radio podcast program originating in Dallas, TX.

Casselman was the original host of “Talk To Your City” on the Minneapolis Television Network, and was a frequent political commentator for KTCA-TV (PBS). In 1992 and 1994, he presented election night analysis for the Conus coast-to-coast All News Channel. In 1996, he provided live coverage from the presidential primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire for All News Channel nationwide. He has also appeared on C-SPAN. In 2008, he was interviewed by ABC-TV Evening News with Charles Gibson.

He has covered national presidential primaries, caucuses and straw polls since 1976, and attended Democratic and Republican national conventions since 1988. He has traveled throughout the United States to report on significant political events, including the national congressional debate in Williamsburg in 1996, the presidential debates, national conventions and events of the Democratic Leadership Council, Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, United We Stand America, Reform Party, National Governors Association, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Christian Coalition, CPAC, Green Party and the Independence Party.

In 2012, he was invited to be a civilian participant in the 58th annual seminar on national security at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Also in 2012, he was a speaker at the Jefferson Educational Society's Global Summit IV. At that event, he received the Thomas Hagen "Dignitas" Award for lifetime achievement.

From 1990-2011, he was the executive director of the non-profit International Conference Foundation, and hosted more than 500 world leaders, foreign journalists and other international visitors. At the non-partisan Foundation, he also organized four national symposia: the first on low-income housing with then-HUD Secretary Jack Kemp; the second, a highly-acclaimed conference on “Locating the New Political Center in America” with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and leading spokespersons of the Clinton administration as well as newly-emerged independent groups; the third, a symposium on public communications with then-Governor Tom Ridge, former White House press secretary Mike McCurry, Tony Blankley and other national figures; and in 2003, a symposium on homeland security with Secretary Ridge and leading local and national experts. During this time, he also organized numerous smaller conferences, tours and events for the U.S. Information Agency and the U.S. Department of State for its International Visitor Program and its Foreign Press Center programs. In 2008, he organized a special program for international media and visitors attending the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The Foundation also sponsored programs presenting domestic and international authors and their books.

In 2007, Mr. Casselman helped create and plan the nationally-broadcast and podcast dialogue between former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at the Cooper Union in New York City, and he continued to work on related debate and public policy discussion projects in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Mr. Casselman has been a lecturer on public policy at Princeton University’s annual international business conferences in New York, and its regional conferences in Chicago since 2005; He also has been a guest lecturer at George Washington University, Carleton College, The Chautauqua (NY) Institution, Gannon University, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Santa Barbara City College, University of St. Thomas, Metropolitan State University, Augsburg College, University of Minnesota, Jefferson Educational Society, and on the international voyages of the Queen Elizabeth 2, Sagafjord, Vistafjord and Royal Viking Sun. He has made presentations on journalism and the arts at Carleton College, University of Minnesota, College of St. Catherine, Minneapolis College of Art and Design, Walker Art Center, Metropolitan State University, Mercyhurst College and the Brazilian Writers Union in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

His non-fiction book North Star Rising was published in 2007 by Pogo Press, an imprint of Finney Company. In 2008, Pogo Press published Minnesota Souvenir, Casselman’s history and visitor guide for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul. He was editor and co-author of the book Taking Turns: Political Stalemate or a New Direction in the Race for 2012, a preview of that year's national election.

He has been cited in Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics and in William Safire’s Political Dictionary. Casselman has invented a number of political words and phrases which are now in frequent usage, and listed in various online dictionaries.

He is also a widely-published American poet, short story writer and playwright whose work has been translated and published in Europe, South America and Asia. He is the author of four published books of literary prose and poetry. His work has been frequently anthologized. Two of his plays, in collaboration with composer Randall Davidson, have been performed by the Actors Theater of St. Paul, Minnesota Orchestra, St. Donat’s Ensemble of Wales, and by independent productions at the Union Depot in St. Paul and the Foss Theater at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. He has provided original texts for two award-winning experimental films, as well as texts for other independent short films and videos.

Barry Casselman was born in Erie, Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. with major honors from the University of Pennsylvania and his M.F.A. at the Writers Workshop at the University of Iowa. He has also studied in Paris, and attended the University of Madrid. He now lives in Minneapolis.